Buckeye Law Guy

Ashamed to be a Buckeye

2004-10-01T00:27:00.000-05:00

This is hardly a letter from a Birmingham jail, but as OSU announces tomorrow its new non-discrimination policy that's not, I felt the need to share not only some summations of the meeting today but also my own thoughts on the issue.

Notes from the meeting are in bold, my own comments are normal type.

Dean Davies ran the meeting, Dean Rogers connected via speaker phone. (Dean Rogers didn't say much the entire time, she was on a phone in the car).

VP for student affairs Bill Hall is the one who apparantly made the decision about the new policy.
Rich Hollingsworth associate v.p for student affairs also present.
Kim _____ from legal affairs present as well. Hollingsworth didn't say much, while Kim spoke when Hall faltered and didn't know what to say.

The reason for meeting at late moment: announcement to be made tomorrow, didn’t want students to hear about this in the paper for the first time.
Ok, granted, that's a noble goal. So why did I have to hear about it from someone else? Why were "regular" students not told (i.e. those not in a leadership position, and those not in Outlaws? What is the admininstration afraid of? That heteros like myself would learn about this decision, and not agree???

Hall: the new policy was his decision, and he wanted to share reasons behind the decision.
Several hours later, still waiting to hear them, beyond "it was in the best interests of the university." Of course, what defines "the university" seems to be somewhat subjective, as I would personally believe that, oh, I don't know, MAYBE NOT DISCRIMINATING would be in the best interests of the university. But what do I know, I don't have a long fancy title behind my name.

Hall's Prepared remarks:
In essence the decision is that the new guidelines allow groups that have religious beliefs to adopt discrim policies that are in accordance with those religious beliefs. (WTF?!!!)

He claims to be personally and professionally against discrimination, but had to make this decision in the best interests of the university.

He’s aware of the discussion within the law school, but also aware and sensitive to religious beliefs that are strongly held.

Disagreement among the legal community, outside and inside OSU.

His job was difficult. You'll have to excuse me if I fail to feel all that sympathetic for Mr. Hall. Bull Conner's job was difficult too.

His decision is supposed to be the best decision for the entire university.
Decision doesn’t represent a reversal of OSU policy. So, we can summarize the OSU discrimination policy thusly: You can't discriminate, unless you really want to. Then you can discriminate. Makes sense, and I can certainly see how that's not a reversal of OSU policy.

Also, the policy only applies to student groups of people with strongly held religious beliefs.
Well gee, that makes me feel better. Certainly nobody with strongly held religous beliefs has ever done anything that's morally wrong. Ever.

A question asked if there was anything discussed about non-sexual discrimination issues…he claims that they’ll follow the law of the land.
I'm sure the Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King would be proud.

Student organizations can now be exempt from the discrimination policies

At this point I asked how we can be on the forefront of the discrimination issue if we're going to effectively step back and say "someone else make this decision, it's too hard."

Hall claims to be “on the forefront of the decision” now that the issue has been resolved at this time… That makes sense, in a Bushian kind of way. The war is going well because it's going bad.

Dean Rogers: other institutions are also currently facing that.

Yes, we know that, but are we freakin' Ohio State, or are we St. Mary's Sisters of the Blind and Poor University????

Someone asked why the decision was being made at this point in time.

Hill: he’s made his decision b/c student groups were requesting allocations of funds, he met with groups that requested to meet with him.

A student asked: is the suit still pending? Yes, it is.

Hall: “I’ve been supportive of LBGT rights in the past, I’ll continue with that, doing everything I can to fight discrimination.
Including passing a discrimination policy that allows discrimination. That fits, I guess.

Colker: I agree, I'm ashamed as well. There are no “unless the law requires otherwise” clauses in the policy, i.e. the race issue (Hill claims that under Title VI we wouldn’t be able to discriminate.

Hall just says “I disagree with your interpretation of the policy.”
His assistant says “you’re correct that the way the policy is drafted it applies to everything

At this point, I had to ask another question. I asked, in effect: So, as I hear the policy, if I were a member of the World Church of the Creator, Nathan Hale's Neo-Nazi church, [which believes that whites are superior to all others], and I correspondingly started a student group for that organization, if I really really really really really believed that blacks and asians were inferior and thus should be excluded, I could effectivly do that and even get student money!?

Hall doesn't know what to say...he starts to answer, stops, and then looks to Kim, his assistant. She stammers a bit, and then says, "Well, yes, as the policy is written."
I can hardly believe what I'm hearing at this point. I said something to the effect that if people 50 years ago had said the same thing, except in reference to blacks, where would we be today in terms of discrimination against blacks? We're doing the same thing now, and I cannot believe that I'm sitting here listening to the university say they're going to allow discrimination. I also said something to the effect that if we're training to be lawyer, and we're going to claim to be on the forefront of public institutions, we should be ones pushing the envelope.

At this point, Goldberger broke in and started to say that I didn't understand that there were two ways to look at pushing the envelope, and I didn't really understand the issue.
Well, with all due respect sir, I DO understand the issue(s). I'm firmly aware that a First Amendment freedom of religion exists in this country. I'm also highly aware that religous pretexts and Biblical support has been used for thousands of years by those in power to oppress certain peoples, whether it be Southerners who claimed that slavery was ok because it was in the Bible, to people who said that blacks were inferior to whites because that, too, was purportedly in the Bible, to the Spanish inquisition and the Crusades, effected because it was the good Christian's duty to go convert or kill the godless Muslums. Are you, Mr. Hall, willing to stand up in front of the student body of the Ohio State University and say that you accept the argument that blacks can be enslaved because their owners belived, very strongly, that there was a biblical and religious reason for such a situation?? We're not talking a First Amendment issue here, we're talking about a human rights issue, which transcends the First Amendment. So you'll have to excuse the fuck out of me I'm not willing to buy the "they should be able to discriminate because the Bible said so" argument. On a side note: point to me where, EXACTLY, Jesus condemned gay people, and then we can start this debate off on the same footing. Until then, as a Christian (i.e. a follower of Christ's teachings, as opposed to the Jewish power structure responsible for the Old Testament) how can you claim to so adamently against gays when Jesus never saw it as a "problem" that needed to be addressed. But I digress...although only slightly.

Someone asked: What does “best interests of the university” mean?
Hall: organizational allocation issues were coming up…a decision needed to be made.
Another student pressed him further. Hall responded: well, like [Goldberger] said, there are two sides of things.

The student pressed him further: what rights or criterion took precedent? He said basically that student groups with strongly held religious beliefs should be able to hold those beliefs. Let me just say to this student, you rocked. You didn't get upset, you didn't get agitated, but when he refused to answer your question, you pressed him until he admitted that students' religious beliefs were deemed more important than not discriminating against another group of students. Hmmm...that sounds somewhat...discriminatory. You chose one over the other, bub.

The first student says “we need to put things in place to make sure that we don’t have a hostile environment here at the law school.”

Hall says “I agree, and think you summarized the issue well. We need to stop now.”

There were other portions of the discussion, of which I was largely involved, that I did not get written down, so my specific sequence of events, etc. may be slightly off, but this is the general gist of things.

Some observations:
1. What a chickenshit decision by a university that lost untold amounts of respect in my eyes today. Effectively what the university has said is this: We want to be a national university, we want to be a nationally renowned law school, we wanna play in the same sandbox as the Michigans and UVas of this country, but when the time comes for some heavy lifting to be done, we're going to tuck our tail between our legs and run home like a puppy that's been whupped with the paper one too many times. We turned tail and ran, and while you can spin it all you want, Mr. Hall, the fact of the matter is you made this decision to cover your ass; You claim you didn't know about the CLS suit, or that you didn't know the specifics of it or whatever, but I say bullshit.
2. This is a decision that was made to avoid the tough question of "If not now, then when? If not us, then who? When is the time NOT right to stand up against that which is wrong?" If you want another cliche, Mr. Hall: What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right. While this new policy may solve the problem temporarily (which it doesn't, as the suit still exists) and allow the almighty dollars to be shoveled out the door to those student groups clammoring for their $300 (it's nice to now that the going price for allowing discrimination these days is only $300), the policy also essentially moots the non-discrimination policy in the first place. What good is a non-discrim policy that says "you can't discriminate unless you really, really want to, in which case we'll let you." Why bother having that discrimination policy, then? What's to stop myriad other as-applied challenges to this policy, Mr. Hall? All this policy does is push the issue off onto someone else, and let someone else take the heat. Maybe it's time for some people to leave the kitchen...?
3. I'm embarassed today, I'm ashamed to say that I'm a Buckeye, and that pisses me off. Perhaps I was naievely optimistic that people with educations would understand the historical ramifications, both forward-looking and backward-looking, of this particular juncture in history. I guess I was wrong, and that's disappointing as well.
4. Like Law Dork said, this new policy, which says you can't discriminate unless it's very strongly held RELIGIOUS beliefs is rife with potential equal protection issues. I'll let him write more extensively on that (after all, it was his observation), but I agree that if one takes this to the next logical step, what's to stop someone from saying that they want to discriminate based on political beliefs, or strongly held beliefs about any number of societal issues?
5. Today was a very revealing day for me as a lawyer-in-training. Although I felt at times like I was just flailing (like Bush tonight!), others said that I was articulate and well-spoken but passionate (compassionately so?). I guess that's a good thing, that I didn't come across like a raving lunatic. On the other hand, drawing the direct parallel to other civil rights issues and given my history background, it makes me sick to my stomach to stand in the breach, so to speak, as history happens all around me and I feel powerless to stop it. I want to just scream sometimes, and say "These same arguments that people make, about how gays shouldn't be able to do this, or that, or that we should be able to exclude them from X..." are the same freaking arguments made decades ago. Just replace "niggers" with "faggots" and we're right back there again, having to fish Emmit Till (or was it Matthew Sheppard?) out of the river.

Just my opinion, I guess, but at the end of the day, I think Jesus is weeping somewhere, ashamed at what's being done purportedly in his name. He didn't hate, he didn't discriminate (except against the religous hypocrites), and he certainly didn't stand by and accept things as they were just so he didn't rock the boat. Mr. Hall, the boat's not rocking too much, so I'm sure Ms. Holbrooke will give you an attaboy, but from my chair, you and all the others who decided that discrimination was preferable to civil rights, you, sir, get a thumbs down. There is right, and there is wrong, and this time, Ohio State is wrong.

10:30

2004-09-30T21:30:00.000-05:00

All done.
Reactions...but first, there's McCain clapping his hands and playing the house organ for Bush.

Bush's themes: Kerry is weak on terra.
Kerry's themes: Bush is wrong about just about everything.

Tim Whore Russert saying "this is the kind of debate this country needed." Russert saying both candidates were "polished." I would disagree. I thought Kerry carried the ball most of the time, while Bush flailed.

How's this for the expectations game: The common wisdom was that Kerry would be boring, dull, and long winded. He was none of those, so he showed well. Bush looked fidgity, unsure or cocksure, nervous, and smirkey. Kerry looked stately.

The "experts" will probably crow about how "magnificent" Bush was, because he could breath and stand at the same time, but that's a load of crap. He's not the governor of a piddly piss-ant state this time around, and although Bush has improved from four years ago, he's still not in element in debates when he has to think on his feet.

10:26

2004-09-30T21:26:00.000-05:00

Closing arguments. Kerry goes first. Dammit.

Says we need to have someone as commander in chief who can get the job done and bring the troops home. "Let me look you in the eye and say I defended this country as a young man, and I'll do it again as President."

"I'm not talking about leaving, I'm talking about winning." Great line.

Basically says "I have a different plan than Bush."
"The future belongs to freedom, not fear."

Bush closing statement: "The world will drift towards tragedy."
"I wanna strengthen homeland security and strengthen the military."
"Fight the terrists overseas so we don't have to do it here at home."

Empty vacuous statements: "I believe in the power of freedom." Yeah, good statement: who doesn't, douchebag?

"We've climbed the mighty mountain, and seen the bountiful valley below." Who did he rip off for that line?

10:21

2004-09-30T21:21:00.000-05:00

Question to Bush: What do you think about Putin's anti-democratic actions to fight terror?
Answer: I don't agree with those actions..."I have a good relationship with Vladimurr...and it's important to establish good relationships with people in this world." I don't think I can take any more irony. Also, GEORGE, you're referring to another world leader...Vladimurrr isn't really the proper title.
Bush tries to make this about terra again, when it's a question of government.

Kerry rebuttal: we have to stand up for democracy, and even quotes George Will! Kerry then comes back to North Korea...says "Just because Bush says something doesn't mean it's true...this is the same president who said there were WMD's in Iraq."

Lehrer tries to goad Bush into giving a response...Bush retreats back to "We looked at the same intelligence" line of argument. Kerry: great comeback: Saddam WAS a threat...But THAT WASN'T THE ISSUE!!! The issue is what he DID about it." Good point, George.

10:16

2004-09-30T21:16:00.000-05:00

Question to Kerry: What's the biggest threat of the next president?

Answer; Kerry immediately says "nuclear proliferation." Good answer. Then stats to say that Bush has secured LESS nuke material in the two years after 9/11 than in the two years before.

Will Bush's water-drinking, and slamming his glass down this year's Al Gore "sighs."

Kerry also talks about how the U.S. is working on new nuclear weapons, and how he would shut them down.

Bush rebuts: We've increased funding for nuke-u-ler proliferation. (hopefully Kerry hammers on that, b/c it's just factually incorrect.) Bush talks about what he's done on nuke proliferation...
Hey, did you know we busted some proliferators?
Now Bush brings in missile defense system, says that's the way to defend us.

Holy shit! Lehreh acknowledged Kerry wanting to rebut!
Bush is on the ropes...Kerry says that the difference is that Bush has had four years, and he hasn't done anything about it.

10:10

2004-09-30T21:10:00.000-05:00

A question of "character issues" to Bush: Do you believe there are character issues that make Kerry unfit to be commander in chief?

Ummm...Bush wont' hold it against Kerry that Kerry went to Yale. Ummmm...Right. Because Bush went to...Yale. Ok.

Anyway, now Bush keeps talking about messages to the troops, etc., and we should never change our beliefs.

John...QUIT MAKING NICE GUY!!!! Quit using your rebuttal time to make jokes!
NOW you're talking...it's one thing to be certain, but it's another thing if you're wrong. Bush isn't acknowledging reality.

Bush rebuttal: "We will shift tactics! But I won't change my values because of politics." All Bush can do is try to flail on "flip-flopper."

Kerry responds well to that cut.

10:07

2004-09-30T21:07:00.000-05:00

Question to Kerry about Dharfur:

What do we do? Kerry says we need to have more than humanitarian aide. Says we have to have logistical support there (military?). Now Kerry segues into talking about the back-door draft. Bush, meanwhile, keeps drinking his water. Kerry looks good...

If it took U.S. troops to coalesce the African union to stop the genocide.

Bush takes a detour to try to slam Clinton about Iran.
Of course, NOW Bush wants to use sanctions to control the situation! "Daddy! This is HAAAARD! Make John stop, he's kicking my ass!!!"

10:04

2004-09-30T21:04:00.000-05:00

Kerry rebutts on the nuke issue: says Bush did nothing about Iran while other countries did, Bush told them to piss off. On North Korea, Kerry is hammering on how we had North Korean under control...

How wonderlandian...Bush is so concerned about having 6 party talks about North Korean nuke issues. Huhhh???

10:02

2004-09-30T21:02:00.000-05:00

Bush asked about the North Koreans. Talks a chance to blame Clinton. LADIES AND GENTS, WE HAVE A NUKE-U-LER INCIDENT!!!! Learn how to pronounce it, dumbass.

Work with the world, blah blah blah about nuke-u-ler weapons.
Bush is flailing.

9:59

2004-09-30T20:59:00.000-05:00

Kerry asked about preemptive strikes. GREAT story about Sec. of State under JFK during Cuban Missile crisis going to Paris, and de Gaulle saying "if it's good enough for the President of the U.S., it's good enough for me." Can we say that about the world today and the word of the U.S. president?

Bush responds with: "A global test"? You act to make the country more secure, blah blah blah. Bush changes the subject to the international criminal court..."we won't join the court, blah blah blah."

Kerry obviously has a response, but Lehrer ignores him.

9:54

2004-09-30T20:54:00.000-05:00

Question to Bush: Are you going to preemptively invade another country?
Bush avoids the question, says "I hope I don't have to." Answer the question, asshole."

"We would rue the day we left Hussein in power."

Bush is repeating himself: "We speak clearly, and let the world know we mean what we say, and not be inconsistent." Then, he tries to claim Libya as a U.S. success.

Kerry rebuttal: Bush said "The enemy attacked us." But Saddam Hussein didn't attack us, bin Laden did. When we had bin Laden pinned down, we didn't use the best trained warriors in the world to go after him, we outsourced that to Afghan warlords.

Also: Bush said Saddam would have been stronger is we hadn't invaded. That's just factually incorrect.

Bush of course has to jump in again and say "Of course I know that bin Laden attacked us!"

Kerry rebuttal: 35-40 countries in the world had more capabilities to make WMDs than Iraq when we invaded. While we were distracted by Iraq, North Korea went nuclear, Darfer genocide is going on, etc...the world isn't safer.

9:51

2004-09-30T20:51:00.000-05:00

How many times is Bush going to say "It's hard work." No shit it's hard work...sometimes you might think about that BEFORE you invade!
Bush: I'm just flabbergasted that my opponent would call Pinnochio...errr...I mean Alawi, a puppet.

QUIT LEANING ON THE PODIUM, MONKEYBOY!!!

Kerry rebuttal: the president hasn't shown how he will go about changing things the right way. Alawi himself said that things are going shitty.

Bush again breaks the rules, says "but but but the terrists are pouring in because Iraq is the central front in the war on terra.

Lehrer didn't give Kerry the chance to respond.

9:44

2004-09-30T20:44:00.000-05:00

Awww...a touching little homily from Bush about some chick named Missy in North Carolina (Edwards country, convenient, that, eh?) who's husband was sacrificed by Bush.

Kerry rebuttal: "I know what it's like to lose people in combat. But it's vital to not confuse the war with the warriors." Good point.

Kerry says: "We have a choice in Iraq. The President isn't getting the job done. You can use my plan, or you have the President's plan, which is four words: More of the same."

Bush wants to jump in (again). WTF, Jim...are you going to give Bush a reach-around too?

Bush again brings in the "wrong war, wrong time..."

Kerry responds: Pottery store illustration: if you break it, you fix it. If you broke it, obviously you made a mistake. You need to acknowledge it and fix it.

Kerry now talking about how we're building 14 permanent military bases right now...instead we need to change the dynamics on the ground...don't back off from Faluja and give in to terrorists.

"I will make a statement: the U.S. has no long term designs on permanently being in Iraq."

9:38

2004-09-30T20:38:00.000-05:00

Kerry dodged using the L word (liar). Good work.
Kerry talking about Bush lying (I'll use the word) to the country in the State of the Union address and other times...meanwhile, Bush is frantically flipping through his notes looking for where Rove put the right answer to this question!!!! Of course, since Faux News Channel is running all the TV cameras, they shifted away from a split screen.

Kerry invokes Reagan!!!

"Osama bin Laden dudn't get to determine how we defend this country." Response by Bush.

Bush isn't able to substantively argue on the issues: all he has to go on is to keep trying to say "But hey, Kerry changed his mind!" Bush is justifying HIS decision by saying "But Kerry saw the intelligence too!"

GOOD FUCKING ANSWER JOHN: I'VE HAD ONE, CONSISTENT POSITION ON HUSSEIN THE WHOLE TIME; HE WAS A DANGER. I just believe there was a right way to go about handling the situation, and a wrong way. I just believe that Bush has consistently chosen the wrong one.

Bush replies: BUT HE'S INCONSISTENT! Not really, but what's your response substantively, dickhead.

9:35

2004-09-30T20:35:00.000-05:00

"The plan says there will be elections in January, there will be." Ummm...ok. If you say so. Of course, Rummy says if we only can have elections in SOME parts of the country, that's good.

Bush just sounds whiney..."It's HAAAARRD!" Whaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

Kerry rebuttal: says that Bush, even knowing there were no WMD's, no connection to 9/11, no Al-Queda, would still invade.
Kerry can quote numbers of troops on the ground from other countries...8300 British, 4000 Ozzies, everyone else in the hundreds...

Now talking about nuclear weapons, and how Bush allowed other countries of going nuclear.

9:30

2004-09-30T20:30:00.000-05:00

John...why the hell are you conceding that you agreed about the imminent threat, blah blah blah?

Great quote: Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 was like FDR invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.

Now Kerry hammering on Bush pushing away our allies, and bringin in Halliburton.

Bush response: "That's absurd." Ummm...good response, stupid head! I'm rubber and you're glue....asshole.

Bush keeps trying to work in the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" quote...But we AAAARRREEE gonna have a summit! really, really, really, I swear!!!!" Liar.

Kerry rebuttal: U.S., Britain, and Australia aren't a "grand coalition."

Bush response: He forgot Poland!!!!

Good comeback. He looks like a bully, and he acts like a bully...when someone stands up to him, he doesn't know what to do, and flails wildly. I hope this keeps up.

9:26

2004-09-30T20:26:00.000-05:00

Is it just my jaded eye, or is Kerry actually landing some body blows? Monkey boy: "They're on there way to a nation that's free." Ummm...ok. Whatever that is.

Kerry: "Help is on the way." Fucking brilliant.
Now talking about meeting some soldiers who said to him "We need you." Good. Nice, and simple.
Using Bush's father against him..."No exit strategy."

Now Kerry talking about the invasion, and how we only protected the oil mininstry on the invasion.
Easy John, easy on the "I was there" references.

WTF! Bush jumps in, breaks the rules, and argues like a kindergardner..."But but but...that's a bad message to send to the commander in chief.

"I made a mistake in how I talk about the war...the President made a mistake in going to war. Which is worse?"

Good rebuttal, John. Don't let Bush break the rules.

9:21

2004-09-30T20:20:00.000-05:00

Kerry talking about sending shitloads of money overseas while cutting homeland security funding here vis a vis first responders.
So far, I'm glad to see that Kerry is making this about Bush's record. If I were to use a legal term, it would be res ipsa loquitor. (that's probably misspelled.) But so far, Kerry has just hammered on Bush's record, which is what he needs to do.

Bush response..."it's, like, a HUGE tax gap. But that's another point for another debate." Then, "the best way we can secure the homeland is to always be on the offense." He feels like "we've improved the FBI, blah blah blah..." It feels like Bush is making it up as he goes right now, not his strong suit.
Kerry just got another "extension" and made a good rebuttal point. Bush jumps in and starts talking about "I wake up every day thinking about protecting the 'Merkin people." Chase 'em down...

Hey asshat, don't you mean "Smoke 'em out and kill 'em"?
Bush is struggling...he needs to stay on script, because he can't hang if he goes off script.

9:18

2004-09-30T20:18:00.000-05:00

Kerry is talking about Humvees and body armor...leading into talking about casualties. Good point about increasing casualties in each of the last 6 months.

OOOOHHHH - a one minute extension...

Bush is saying "my opponent is saying he voted to authorize force, blah blah blah. What does that message send to our troops, blah blah blah."

The elephant in the room on that is that rumblings from the military are that they're, well, let's say less than enamored with Monkey boy.

9:16

2004-09-30T20:16:00.000-05:00

Bush is speaker better than he has in a while. Good delivery, although he needs to stop leaning on the damn podium. However, my big beef with him so far is that every assumption he's speaking clearly about is just flat out wrong. Hopefully Kerry calls him on it.

Nine o'clock and all's well...

2004-09-30T20:14:00.000-05:00

Lots o' stuff today to talk about....
Important stuff to write about, but right now the debates are on, so I'll attempt to do a Geidner-esque simul...blog.

What's the propensity, Kenneth?

2004-09-25T23:48:00.000-05:00

Here's an idea I would potentially like to pursue as a journal note of some sort: If the Kobe Bryant rape trial had gone forward, I think the defense could have made a compelling, and perhaps convincing, case for admitting evidence of the accuser's character. Now, before the two people reading this jump all over me for being a pig, understand that I'm not saying that the defense should have been able to bring in evidence of the woman's previous sexual history, although her sexual history in the immediate time period surrounding the alleged rape is certainly relevant, and relevant for purposes other than proving character as propensity; if the prosecution's case was (as I understand it) based largely on the physical vaginal injuries suffered by the woman, that she allegedly had multiple partners immediately before and after the Kobe coitus is overwhelming probative to proving that someone else could have been the source of those injuries. However, what I'm proposing is slightly different than the sexual history/character evidence in that regard; I believe that Kobe's defense team should have been able to bring in evidence that the woman was notorious for outlandish behavior with the intent of attracting attention. Several of her high school classmates made statements to that effect, including many of them referencing her attempted suicides, and her heavy participation in dramatic and other performing arts, perhaps indicative of her intense craving for attention.
I realize this is a gray area, but again, let's look at the logical steps:
The issue is not whether the sex happened; Kobe even admits that it did. The issue is whether the sex was consenual or not, and it's possible that one can argue that the girl's character trait of doing wild, crazy things (like having sex with a celebrity as famous as Kobe) led to her engagement in consenual sex with Kobe. One wouldn't be using the character evidence as proof of the woman's sexual history and thereby her consent; instead, one would use character evidence to proove the woman's propensity for repeated behaviors to attract attention, which in turn goes to prove consent. One can plausably fit such a use of character evidence under the "catch-all provision" allowing the Defendent his Sixth Amendment rights.

Just a curious thought, needs to be fleshed out in much greater detail, and with a much firmer grasp on the evidentiary rules, but might it not be plausable?

Bunnypants, Bunnypants, (why)fore art thou Bunnypants?

2004-09-25T18:46:00.000-05:00

Recently, some who are "in the know" as to my person asked about my...umm...unusual name, Happycrack Bunnypants. Basically the questions were what you would expect: Why the ____ do you use that name? Why not use something else? blah blah blah.
The answers to these legitimate questions lie in something I learned while studying Ancient Egyptian history quite a while back while living in London; When a present pharaoh wanted to effectively wipe a former pharaoh from the history books, such an action was possible by simply destroying all sculptures, monuments, and other such three dimensional honoraira. An effective technique for a millenia-old culture. However, another way in which a historical ruler could be wiped from history was to have that old ruler's name wiped from the historical record, and correspondingly that name was not to be used. In a few generations, that target of historical obliteration ceased to exist for all intents and purposes. Therein lies the etymology of my name: Unless I slip up and make a booboo, I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the current squatters living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While the election of 1876 may have wrought a similar situation with a disputed election and questionable results, the election of 2000 was the first election that was so blatantly and obviously stolen, aided and abetted by the now diminished Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
Thus, if one were a regular reader of this blog, one would see references to the following:
Happycrack Bunnypants
Smirkey McChimpster
Incurious George
Smirk
pResident Asshat
King George
Chimpy
Smirkey McWarhardon
pResident Cokehead
Al Kaholic
Stretch
pResident AWOL
Siezer Augustus

etc. etc. etc. Is this mature of me? Probably not. Professional? Most certainly not. Original? Nope. I can't really claim credit for the overwhelming majority of these names. Does this serve to advance the political discourse in a civilized manner? Right... Is it cathartic? You bet. Are the R's above name-calling, and other childish techniques so as to control the terms of the debate? Not on your effing life. Should the other side do it as well? You gotta play the hand you're dealt...
Do I sound like Rummy with my question-speak? Almost certainly. Should he be tried as a war criminal under a Kerry admininstration? Absolutely. Will it happen? Yeah right...the D's don't/can't play hardball as well as the R's do...if this absolute disaster in the Middle East were Clintonian in origin, Tom DeLay and the rest of the vermin under his control would already be screaming about impeachment.

A thought to ponder

2004-09-22T17:38:00.000-05:00

Just as a moral introspection, what does it say about me that if I were to be the defense attorney for the Unabomber looking at a state capital trial, I would choose to send him to Florida. Not because I would stand the best chance of getting an acquittal, but because I've in effect thrown in the towel preemptively (hey, who knew that the Bush doctrine of preemption applied so easily to so many things) on Kaszinski's guilt, and Florida's capital sentencing system presents a rather clearly unconstitutional (via Blakely) process by which the court makes determinations of fact pursuant to sentencing mitigation or aggrevation factors. That Florida system, then, presents ample opportunity for the case to bogged down (or tied up, depending on your directional preference) for years to come.
It would seem to me that Blakely's decision regarding Washington state's sentencing guidelines would be even more appropriate given that the issue in Blakely was not a capital case, while the issue at hand would specifically be Florida's capital system. Therefore, a capital case like Florida's would be that much more unconstitutional given the infinately higher stakes than Washington's non-capital guidelines considered in Blakely.

The bigger issue on a personal level, however, is whether I should feel conflicted about the fact that my first gut reaction to the decision between Texas or Florida for a state Unabomber trial was to go Florida all the way because of the likely results on the back end of a conviction, not because of the likelihood of an acquittal. Would my thinking be different if this weren't the Montana Wacko? If this were Terry Nichols in HIS state trial for the OK City bombing? If this were some random, anonymous person being digested through the legal system, about which I don't know (or think I know) like I do with Kaszinski or Nicholls? Should it matter, and what does such a mindset indicate? Hmmmm....

Take THAT, LawDork-I can be law boy too! Well, not really, who am I trying to kid. I'm just the geeky kid with broken glasses and velcro shoes who has to stand and watch all the other cool kids play ________ (insert seasonal sport here) at recess. Every so often the ball might roll out of bounds and that kids can throw it in the direction of the goal/hoop/endzone, etc. but then it's back to the sidelines (in this case, my political "discourse" as it where...) But then again, "discourse" would inferr some sort of readership, which is most likely sorely lacking. Oh well, you'll have that.

HCBP

Hmmmm...drop the ball, Matty?

2004-09-22T12:26:00.000-05:00

Did Drudge accidentally provide a link to the following story about a growing segment of the military that is anti-Bush? Surely Rove's cabanna boy didn't MEAN to have that headline, did he? Naaaaaa, couldn't have; perhaps that's why one cannot find such a headline in his "headline archive" just a few days after I saw the headline and clicked it.
The gist of the CS Monitor story is the growing segement of the military, which actually pays the price of Shrub's misguided foreign poilicy (intentional misspelling), and that group of soldiers, sailors, and Marines who are opposed to another four years of empire-building. It's a fascinating read, and a welcomed counter-argument to my last post.

a snippit:

...soldiers and marines on Iraq's front lines can be impassioned in their criticism. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall.

"Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments.

"There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said.

Now it's just a question of whether the Pentagon will let those pro-Kerry votes be cast.

HCBP

No draft my ass!

2004-09-22T12:15:00.000-05:00

I've never understood the military's obsessive hard-on for a party that just absolutely pants to send soldiers off to die. I realize there's that whole "if you just train for the Super Bowl your whole life and never get to play in the game, that just sucks" argument, but then again, we're talking reality here, life and death, not Janet and Justin's wardrobe malfunction. I'm not cracking on the military, just their general blind obedience to the Republican party. That fact amazes me even more in light of what this particular administration has done to the active soldiers, as well as the returning vets. The most recent example of how pResident AWOL shits on the very essence of our current forgeign policy is that troops are now being told that unless they reenlist for a three-year hitch, they're going to be sent to Iraq:

The 3rd Brigade Combat Team from Fort Carson...said last week that they were told to re-enlist for three more years - or be transferred to Iraq. "They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers.

Read the rest of the story, (apologies to Paul Harvey, R-Horse Molester) as well as some other information that will make your blood boil.

Help is on the way, indeed.

HCBP

You're missing the point!

2004-09-22T12:06:00.000-05:00

My goodness Karl Rove should have been a concert violinist...he sure can play the national media, the "chattering class" if I may, like a virtuoso. From the moment this whole CBS-forged memo thing dropped, I thought the thing stank of Rove. Anyone who's been following the story all along knows that the assertions in those memos were accurate - hell, even the secretary whose statement that she didn't type the memos was appended...she continued to say that everything in the memos was accurate and correct, just that she didn't type those exact memos. But, what's the big story? Not that the information about Bush disobeying a direct order was incorrect, or that he was AWOL, just whether Dan Rather lied or not, and whether CBS should apologize.

Excuse the hell out of me if I fail to get too riled up about some forged or otherwise misleading "intelligence" leading to an inaccurate accusation; it's not like we've seen THAT happen in the past, oh I don't know, two years? Certainly this admininstration would not have used such spurious circumstances to march off on our merry crusade, right? I'm firmly convinced that this was a set-up from the get-go, classic Rovian tactic...they know there's a "chink in the armor" so to speak, and although the standard rejoinder to questions about pResident Asshat is "He served his time, and was honorably discharged" that doesn't mean there's not something smoldering under the surface. Pick and choose the method and the means by which one confronts the potentially damaging issue, and you can do preemptive damage control by shifting the focus from the actual damning evidence to the carrier of that evidence. So now, the bad guy isn't AWOL Cokehead, the bad guy is Dan Rather and CBS, recently of Titty-gate consternation.

Rove's been doing this shite for years, and will probably continue to do so because the 'Merkin sheeple fall for it every freakin' time.

HCBP

Don't Worry About It

2004-09-22T10:58:00.000-05:00

In the words of Aaron Lewis, "It's been awhile..." since I've posted. Too much going on to even think straight. Then again, perhaps that's when I NEED to be writing.
Anyway, a rumination about my work: how does one, when faced with what seems to be an iron-clad argument from the opposing side, tell one's supervisor that such is the case? Generally I suppose one can parse words of a statute or find some obscure case that might be vaguely on point, but in this case...I got nuthin'. Chalk one up for the bad guys. At least it's not a case-determinative motion, but still, I hate losing and I feel like I lost this round.

HCBP

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

2004-09-17T01:07:00.000-05:00

Are you freakin' kidding me? I thought I covered the Alice in Wonderland range of things in the last post. But this one tops...well, not all of them, but most of them:

President Bush (R-Bogota by way of Camp David) said Thursday that his Democratic opponent "wants to expand government" in education, health care, taxes and virtually every other area of domestic policy.
"We have a difference of philosophy in this campaign," Bush told supporters. "It's a clear difference: my opponent's programs will expand government. Our programs will expand opportunity."

Hmmmm...that's quite interesting. You see, here all along I thought it was pResident DryDrunk who had expanded the government the most of any President since LBJ. Hell, he's probably closing in on FDR! And yet, he has the temerity to accuse KERRY of wanting to increase the size of government? I'm not sure who to believe - the lying lier who says it, or the idiotic, knuckle-dragging dolts who believe it. Let's take a look at the replay, shall we?
Education: the absolutely gawdawful No Child Left Behind...yeah, either that massively increased the size of the federal government because of what it was supposed to do, or it didn't only because Asshat refused to fund it. Size Advantage: Bush

Health Care: I seem to recall a certain Medicare bill that was passed recently, with the held of a little bribery, extortion, and a complete sell-out by the AARP. Last I knew, it also massively ramped up the size of government spending, as well as effectively jamming seniors with a huge increase in the co-pays they will have to pay starting next year (that info was conveniently released on a Friday afternoon...). Size Advantage: Bush

Taxes: Well, Bush advocated abolishing the IRS and going to a national sales tax, probably because he read about it in one of his "Getting Rich for Dummies and Heirs" books, so maybe there he actually is being honest. Not really, because the corresponding increase in state and local taxes effectively wipe out any tax relief given to 98% of 'Merkins, but hey, that gub'ment strangling that Grover Norquist wants to do is one step closer... Size Advantage: Kerry

"and virtually every other area of domestic policy." Hmmm...again, that's funny, because here I thought it was the REPUBLICANS who wanted to eff with the Constitution and reach into the bedrooms and homes of every 'Merkin by banning committed relationships that happen to be gay, by banning information about condoms disseminated to those who need the info most (you horny high school kids out there), by reaching into the most intimate of family issues related to a woman controlling her own reproductive rights, by allowing a convicted felon (John Poindexter) to begin a program with the intent of creating a database large enough to hold files on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US that would reveal every transaction we complete...I could go on for hours.
The point here, folks, is that for Incurious George to stand up and say "I'm for smaller government, for a humble foreign policy, for creating opportunities for the little man, because I feel your pain" is just plain bovine excrement. It's not even very good bullshit...it's the same stuff the republican candidate says every year, and every year people with a vested interest in voting Democratic vote for the dark side under the misguided impression that Jesus Christ was a Republican.

Way past time for sleepytime.

HCBP

Go ask Alice what the doorman said...

2004-09-17T00:37:00.000-05:00

Aaaand, down the rabbit hole we go. Let's play dueling headlines, shall we (all apologies to an outstanding if somewhat irrascible website, Bartcop).

Headline from USA Today: Bush clear leader in poll (boy they want him elected so bad their woodies are showing...)
Headline from...well sheeeite, who'da thunk it? 5 minutes ago when I read the first of the two bizarro headlines that started this post, a headline directly under the one written above said "Kerry and Bush tied in poll." Hmmm...magically that headline is now gone, replaced by this one, touting how our Great Leader is tied with Kerry in one poll, and SLIGHTLY AHEAD IN ANOTHER!!!!! Yippeee!!! Maybe he'll give ME a nickname this time!!!! Oh he's so resolute I can hardly breath!

Well, headlines, which is it? Is Siezer Disgustus "clearly" ahead, or is he not? Better yet, any guesses which poll our lil' buddy Matty D chose to run as the big-ass font headline? Two guesses and the first one doesn't count.

More Wonderlandian stuff in the articles themselves:
USA Today:

The boost Bush received from the Republican convention has increased rather than dissipated, reshaping a race that for months has been nearly tied. Kerry is facing warnings from Democrats that his campaign is seriously off-track.

AP:

The first of two national polls by Pew, done Sept. 8-10, reflected the president's post-convention bounce. Bush was ahead of Kerry 52-40 among registered voters and by an even wider margin, 54-39, among likely voters, a narrower group. By the second poll, done Sept. 11-14, the Bush lead had evaporated, the center said Thursday. In that poll, Bush and Kerry were knotted at 46 percent among registered voters.

Ummmmm....ok. Let me spin my head back around so my eyes face the front...

An aside rant here: "Bush continues to hold a commanding lead on the question of who would do the best job of defending the country from terrorists, by 58 percent to 31 percent in the Pew poll." HELLO! ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, OR ARE YOU JUST THAT FUCKING STUPID????!!!!! HE WAS THE GUY IN CHARGE WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS, AND HE'S THE GUY WHO STARTED TWO WARS THAT WILL, IN THE END, ONLY INCREASE THE LIKLIHOOD THAT WE WILL BE ATTACKED AGAIN!!!!! HOW IN THE NAME OF ______ (insert your favorite deity here, although if you're a Shrub supporter, you're probably a fundy who really REALLY enjoyed the Christian porn that was Passion of the Christ. But I digress...) CAN YOU STILL BE UNDER THE DELUDED IMPRESSION THAT BUSH HAS REDUCED THE THREAT OF TERROR TO THIS COUNTRY?????? And fer shits' sakes, it's really those heathen libruls in New York and the Gub'ment in D.C. that's really at risk here, so why do you care anyway? It's not like Osama's got grand designs for blowing up the corn fields in Nebraska!!!!! If by "the best job defending the U.S. from terrorists" you mean who would do the best job pissing the rest of the world off and starting perpetual war, President Asshat's your man, so go right ahead. I'll be in Toronto.

whew. Back to Wonderland...

The national guard story (which I must toot my own horn about and say that I've been harping on this since before the 2000 election, but what's a 10 watt mouthpiece in a 50,000 watt world?) won't go away, but the Bushies have done a great job of shifting attention to the documents' veracity, rather than the story behind them. Here's a quote that should be on every freaking headline tomorrow:

"I think the public ought to be concerned about his preferential treatment getting in and whether he satisfied his commitment to the Air Guard. Those are the two fundamental questions," said Robert Strong, the administrative officer in charge of air operations at Guard state headquarters from early 1971 until March 1972.

Will that headline be seen? Most likely not. After all, the major news organizations are lazy two-dollar whores, the kind that just lie there and count the seconds, and as such they take their news for the day from whatever Matty says is news for the day. And of course, Matty SOOOOOO wants to be in with the Rovian crowd despite his...ummm...what is it, exactly Matt? a lifestyle, as your desparately desired friends would condescendingly refer to it?...that he takes his daily news foci from Rove.

I need a drink. And I don't even drink.

HCBP

Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill!!!!!!!!!

2004-09-15T22:24:00.000-05:00

Apologies to the crazy general in Mars Attacks (truly a waste of 2 hours of your life that you will never get back)...

I thought I was done for the night, but I just stumbled across an article that really confirms my privately held thoughts and fears...the PNAC (Project for a New American Century, or alternatively, the crazy-ass neocons who currently run the shadow government out of Dick Cheney's and Don Rumsfeld's office) is interjecting themselves into the Iran situation already. And, true to their form, they're not even subtle about it...remember, these are the guys who pushed President Clinton to invade Iraq immediately to stop the imminent danger from WMD's...in 1997! He said piss off, so they just put things on the back burner for a while until Emperor AWOL got himself appointed to the Oval Office. Anyway, they're now rattling sabres in Iran's direction, and saying, hell, if we don't start bombing the shit out of Iran, the Isrealis should and will. (Click here to read the PNAC's original manifesto: Rebuilding America's Defenses. It should be required reading for anyone who doesn't know or doesn't believe that everything happening right now in relation to our usage of military power overseas and government power domestically was already planned. Bush jr. has a "vision thing," it's just that it includes perpetual war and fear.)

If we put aside for a second the (in my opinion, false and extremely condescending, ethnocentric, and hubristic) PNAC'ers view of the world as "Us vs. Them" (wait, where have we heard that before?), just read the quotes and understand that these are the exact same arguments made regarding Iraq...simply buy a consonent from Pat Sajack, swap an N for a Q, and you're right back down the memory hole again. The language that really should raise your cockells is:

Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says that with "enough intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a good job" of slowing Iran's programme for a while. But, he cautions, the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for the aftermath. That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered in the debate over "regime change".
Asked whether Israel would take military action if the US dithered, Mr Schmitt replied: "Absolutely. No government in Israel will let this pass ultimately."

Ummmm...excusethefuckoutofme?! Did this Mr. Schmitt just let the cat out o' the bag?!!! It could be wrong, but it appears to me that said Mr. Schmitt is indicating an Isreali strike is in the works. Un...freaking...real. Two wars without end just ain't enough for these chickenhawks. The hubris to think that we, the United States, should and do have some omnipotent, inherant power and right to rule the world and dictate to other countries simply what they can and can't do, should be unpalatable to people. Unfortunately, the 'Merkin sheeple are too busy buying cheap plastic crap at Wal-Mart and watching that noted "Man of the People" Bill O'Liely to know what's really going on.

Enough for now, I think I just burst a blood vessel...

HCBP

A pedantic, pontificating bastard...

2004-09-15T21:59:00.000-05:00

Someone stop the train, I want to get off.

Maybe it's that whole cognitive dissonance thing I reference in my subtitle, maybe it's just operating on 5 hours of sleep for too many days, maybe it's just the realization that my "to-do" list tops out at around 20 or so...and that's frequently in just the next 48 hours...or maybe it's just a lack of ability to suffer purile and pedantic bullshit, but I can honestly say that I'm getting pretty burned out on some law-related things right now. I ask myself - am I truly HAPPY doing all of this, doing it because I WANT to, or doing it because that's just what you're supposed to do this time of year during your 2L experience. On the one hand, I want to cover my bases, which means submitting all the shite for a bunch of OCI firms, even if I've never heard of them or have no idea what in ______ (insert your favorite deity here)'s name differentiates that firm from any of the other multiname firms.
On the other hand, I'm so tired and sick of pretending to hang on every interviewer's every last word, nodding in slightly-open-mouthed-agreement, as if those words coming from the firm rep's mouth held the very key to life's eternal secrets (I guess Admiral Stockdale would be curious..."who are we? why are we here?"...obscure 1992 vice presidential debate reference. but i digress...). It's almost like it's this little dance...they say and do the things they are supposed to, while we the interviewees do likewise; we all dress the same, talk the same, sound the same, have the same credentials (well, more or less...some of us a little less than more I suppose), blah blah blfreakinblah. To bastardize Billy, so much sound and pithy commentary, signifying nothing. HELL, I DON'T EVEN LIKE WINE, but I end up drinking it at these gatherings, because if one doesn't have a drink in hand, then perhaps one doesn't quite "fit the mold." Well maybe that's the freakin' point! (Does anyone else find it extremely ironic that we moan about a substance abuse problem in the legal profession, yet every social event or function, within the lawschool or in an interviewing context, must be lubricated via alcohol?)

I sometimes feel like I just want to stop the merry-go-round and step off, like I want to truly go follow my heart's inclination and work to fight the Dark Side in any way I can. (I would insert a BC04 link here, but I'll be damned if I'll facilitate any additional contact to them, even if no one else reads this but me anyway) (On a side note: Star Wars DVD's coming out next week! Perhaps I can learn something from Obi-Wan's wisdom...). This is especially amplified as we close in on less than two months to go before the most historic election of my lifetime, and realistically one of the most important elections in this country's history since 1860. But at the same time, I'm also realizing that knowledge is power, and power can be dangerous to one's health and outlook on life...the more I delve into that knowledge about the dark side, the closer I come to truly reflecting it in my own way, and I reach such a point of absolute self-loathing, anger, negativity, and just plain depression that I have to tune out...handy when there are 19 other things on the "to-do" list! There's always fantasy football, I suppose, but even that's ruined by the knowledge that I at least subconsciously if not overtly root not for a particular team anymore, but only for or against certain individuals or team defenses as it where, a complete bastardization of the "fan's experience" in my opinion.

I'll stop ranting for now, but this whole OCI thing has really been educational for me in multiple ways: I've learned things about myself that I didn't know, and while some of that is beneficial, I'm not sure I like all that I learned, and I'm not sure how to repress that ugly, dark side that I sense wanting to come out and play more frequently in the last couple of weeks. I got really scared a few days ago...food just didn't sound good, and I absolutely LOVE food! WTF!!!

Laugh it up, fuzzball!
Great shot kid...now don't get cocky!

HCBP

Dude, where's my facts?

2004-09-13T14:59:00.000-05:00

An interesting tidbit related to two failed "wars" on abstract nouns: drugs and terra. It seems that the DEA has created a nifty museum exhibition tying the international drug market and terra together, perhaps a piggyback on those Super Bowl ads a few years ago. Ok, fine, let's acknowledge that Columbia is infested with both narcotrafficking and terra, and that opium/heroin currently (and formerly) pours out of impoverished areas of the "Stans" (Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) However, the disingenuous argument the government makes shows up as follows:

But it also makes a more controversial link between terrorism and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The exhibit includes a large display of debris collected from both sites. The exhibit does not specifically tie the attacks to drug trafficking, but it uses the events to explain how terrorists use the drug trade as one of several methods to fund attacks. It cites U.S. intelligence linking the Taliban in Afghanistan, and by extension its thriving heroin economy, to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

The last highlighted sentence is simply incorrect and false. There WAS no "thriving heroin economy" under the Taliban. For all of their nasty, repressive attitudes (uhh...towards women, Buddah statutes and everyone else who didn't share their 12th Century world view), the Taliban also did not tolerate drug use and production. They irradicated the poppy production throughout the country in a simple way: they burned down the crops and killed the farmers. Effective drug control policy, if not necessarily respective of due process. During the period that the Taliban were in control of Afghanistan, their portion of the world's heroin production was effectively nil.

However: today is a different story. Since we deposed the Taliban (officially, at least), they no longer have the ability to wage their own effective war on poppies, while the puppet Karzai admininistration turns a blind eye to the resumption of poppy production on a massive scale. The heroin pipeline running out of Afghanistan is resurrected and kickin', thanks in extremely large part to the putative war on terra.

So it's true: one CAN get by with a little help from one's friends...
It's a dishonest, and yet completely intentional, mistatement that the government makes, but then again, that's par for the course with the BFEE.

HCBP

A clerkship reflection

2004-09-13T13:26:00.000-05:00

Today at work I was given the task to read a motion to suppress evidence, and check the authorities cited as support to suppress all the evidence in a given case. Rather routine, ordinary stuff I suppose, involving a Terry stop situation, but I was pleasantly supprised to see a confluence between my evidence class material, Con law issues from class, and journal editing, as my current journal assignment involves an analysis of a 2004 SCOTUS case about the "poisoned fruit" of evidence obtained illegally, and the admissibility of such evidence. Although I still don't feel like I have a COMPLETE grasp of the topic, I was able to provide my supervising attorney with some substantive analysis (including noticing where the motion cited particular cases to support the defendant's stance while leaving out particularly salient details that make the authority of those cases to this case much less persuasive), and when she asked pointed, specific questions, I was able to respond somewhat intelligently.

A small step, but another indication that I actually might have a clue of what I'm doing, even if it does take me a while to get there!

HCBP

More Iran...

2004-09-12T22:59:00.000-05:00

Drip.
Great. Let's start issuing ultimatums. Again. Since the rest of the world sees how well THAT worked out for everyone involved.

Drip. Imagine that - a neocon making threats regarding the U.S. in the middle east.

US undersecretary of State John Bolton, speaking briefly to reporters before meeting Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, said "President [George W.] Bush is determined to try and find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. But we are determined that they are not going to achieve a nuclear weapons capability."

Right. Since we are the world's arbitor. Although it never even existed, the "humble foreign policy" of Governor Bush is obliterated by this statement from Bolton. Imagine the absolute outrage if China (to pull the most probable next global empire out of the hat) were to say "We would love to find a peaceful and diplomatic solution the problem of the United State's quest to place military installations on the moon, but we are determined that they will not be successful in that venture." I'm sure Rush would be a real big fan of that.

Drip.
The headline here is the kicker: "U.S. refuses to rule out Iran attack." Great. Now we get to see if the rest of the global class has been paying attention to our lessons and lectures on the virtues and necessity of preemptive warfare. No need to actually have any proof that you're being threatened, kids, just a simple vague feeling is good enough to justify a preemptive strike. Yippeee!!!

Drip. Click here to scan the other 573 stories currently indexed on Google about Iran and the "growing concern" about their nuke-u-ler dreams.

I am not fooled by the Iranians' claims that they only want nuke-u-ler power for peaceful electricity generating purposes: yeah, I want the semester to be over and it's only because I like February in Columbus. However, just like in the lead up to Iraq, if there's a right way to do diplomacy, and a wrong way, the Bush Crime Family and their associates will choose the wrong way every time, and other people's blood will be spilt for it. However, slowly but surely, we shift our attention to Iran, in the very same way we did with Iraq.

Tehran and Washington, sittin' in a tree...
sh-out-i-n-g...
first comes sanctions,
then comes threats,
then comes nuke-u-ler warnings and an invasion...

Four more years, or two more months...we have a choice to make, and the choice is simple: more war or less war. Period.

HCBP

He do (I)ran ran, he do (I)ran, ran...

2004-09-09T15:45:00.000-05:00

Like Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS! The invasion to Iraq was not a spur of the moment kind of decision...the idea was fomented years ago, in the bowls of the Project for a New American Centry (the neocon think tank), and even when 9/11 happened, Iraq was not seen, publicaly at least, as the target. Only through carefully choreographed and orchestrated "drips" did Iraq slowly make its way into the frontal lobe of the 'Merkin sense of fear. Nothing really earthshattering on any given moment, but just a steady, almost rhythmic, cadence of the drums of war, beaten from the basement of the Pentagon in the Office of Special Plans, from the right-wing echo chamber on talk radio and our old buddy Matt Sludge, from Faux News and O'Leilly and Hannity. By the time all was said and done, Osama had magically morphed into Saddam, and Iraq was a "grave and gathering danger" who needed to be stopped, even sans any real evidence that something was up, because we didn't want the "smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Fast forward a few years later...Iraq is now our very own clusterfuck, and there's a slow drip drip drip of scary, frightening news about...Iran. In the interests of curiosity, from now until...well, whenever, I'll try to compile a log of the Iran "drips." I hate to say "I told you so" on Iraq, but I will, and I'll especially hate to say "I REALLY told you so in Iran."

Today's preliminary entry: Iran Seen Using EU to Buy Time to Get Atomic Bomb.

Then again, the REALLY scary shite is that unlike Iraq, which was a hollowed-out shell of a military power, Iran in all likelyhood IS racing to acquire the Bomb, and probably even given a violent shove in that direction by Shrub's embrace of preemptive warfare as official U.S. policy.

HCBP

Just out of curiosity...

2004-09-08T14:40:00.000-05:00

I'm not trying to be inappropriate or anything like that, just the following idea struck me funny:

Do Chinese people get offended by the phrase "chinks in the armor"?

2,350 different hits on Google don't seem to think so.

HCBP

Einhorn & Finkle, Finkle & Einhorn, McConnell & Furman, Furman & McConnell...

2004-09-08T14:15:00.000-05:00

Like the NY Times has its "corrections" section, here's a correction for those so interested:
Furman v. Georgia, the case in which the SCOTUS in 1972 found capital punishment, at least as applied in that case, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, is no longer the longest Court opinion in history; that distinction now belongs to Senator McConnell's failed attempt to overturn McCain-Feingold.

Just for the record...in case anyone cares.

HCBP

Have You No Decency Left, Sir?

2004-09-08T13:22:00.000-05:00

After dancing around the bush (no, it's not a tribal ritual involving Babs) for the entire election cycle, Oily Dick finally came out (now there's an unintended chuckle, no?) and said what the Bushies have been making not so veiled allusions to the entire time: Cheney charged that if the American people elect John Kerry, then as a result we will suffer a terrorist attack.

This statement is so incredibly irresponsible and shameful on so many levels. The notion itself is shameful enough, but upon reading the quote, the sheer level to which the Bushies will sink in playing the fear card is astonishing (or not, if you've followed the Bush Crime Family for some time like I have).

Cheney said:

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

Is this a threat? Is this a warning of something known and not told ("Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."...just a "historical memo" right Condi?), held in reserve as a pudgel as we head into the election home stretch? More importantly, the Vice Asshole is effectively making the statement that a vote for Kerry is a vote to be attacked, as offensive a statement that I've ever seen in the political arena. It's one thing to have one's surrogates out and about making such charges and accusations, as well as the obligatory bumperstickers to that effect, but to have the second-highest-ranking official in the United States explicitly making this connection is wrong, it's unconscionalbe, it's despicable, and the Vice President should be ashamed of himself. Right, like that will happen.

Unreal.

Of course, the White House now denies the statement while not really denying it (Swifties, anyone?)..."There are differences in how the two candidates approach the war on terror" McClellan said. "That's what the vice president was talking about in his remarks."

Bullshit, Scott, and you know it. This was the Veep blatantly and deliberately saying that if the United States elects John Kerry, we will be attacked. End of syllogism fragment.

How long until we collectively have had enough, and stand up and say "No more, no more lies, no more innuendos, no more veiled threats of unnamed and unidentified shadowy monsters, NO MORE." Jayzus, I feel like Boo.

HCBP

A now, a word from Prarie Home Companion...

2004-09-07T09:06:00.000-05:00

I grew up listening to Garrison Keillor's stories of Lake Wobegone, Minnesota, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and the children are definately above average. Apologies to Garrison if I just mangled that cliche. However, I never truly appreciated the man's way with words until I read his recent piece about the GOP's "Platform of Tragedy." One of the things I most resent about this admininstration (and that's going quite a bit to reach that level) is that they have taken FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and turned that phrase completely on its head: "The only thing we have is fear." Their campaign is built around the basic premise of keeping the 'Merkin people in fear, and out of that fear, then, people will vote for pResident AWOL. Kinda like that ratty old blankey that Linus carries around...he knows it's a piece of shit, but he still clings to it for the sense of security it brings, unfounded though that belief is. Keillor spells out this notion of fear-mongering in such a perfect way that to try to paraphrase him would do him a grave injustice. Read if for yourself here.

HCBP

More than woooorrrds, is all you have to show...

2004-09-07T07:00:00.000-05:00

Apologies to that band from the early 90's that had a closeted gay guitarist, and a lead singer who went on to sing for Van Halen...for about 2 minutes until they figured out that the singer was a right-wing nutjob.

Anyway, click here for a must-read synopsis of the RNC get-together in NYC last week. Yes, I know it's old news, but this summation pretty much has it covered.

Also, the genesis of my entry's title is this video from the Daily Show, a mock convention video featuring Shrub and his supposed campaign platform. Funny, yet sobering, it's simply the quintissential Daily Show piece. They do in four and a half minutes what it takes Democrats an entire speech to do.

HCBP

So, it's true! Blakely, although just a state guideline decision and boring to read, CAN have national repercussions!

2004-09-06T21:35:00.000-05:00

Apologies to Dumb and Dumber for that title reference...while researching my app ad paper, I stumbled across a Blakely-related case in California...it seems that a pot grower in Cali has appealed his sentence and conviction based on the Ninth Circuit's decision that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as applied to intrastate production of medical marijuana that is not sold. He's also appealing his sentence based on judicial enhancements, based on Blakely.

A snippet below:

The Ninth Circuit ordered a new trial for Chico medical cannabis defendant Bryan Epis, who was released from federal prison after having served two years of a 10-year sentence for supposedly conspiring to grow over 1,000 plants. In addition to the Raich ruling, Epis raised several other issues in his appeal, among them that his sentence had been enhanced without a jury hearing, in violation of the Supreme Courtπs recent Blakely decision.

Not sure if you're aware of this one, DAB, or if it's even important in the least, but at least it's one more instance of someone asking "Who's your daddy" and another individual appealing a sentence saying "Blakely's my daddy!"

HCBP

Hang on Bunnypants, Bunnypants hang on!

2004-09-06T21:22:00.000-05:00

I swear to _______ (insert whatever mono- or polytheistic deity you choose to claim as your own here), I'm going to have a breakdown. This is unfreakin real...How can something so simple as screwing over a lady who's been shat upon by life, on behalf of Johnny Ashcroft, be so time-consuming to occupy my entire freaking three day weekend? well, except for a chunk o' time on Saturday, when I just HAD to go see the Buckeyes bitch-slap the Bearcats. (editorial insert: one of these years, we're going to lose one of these games to another Ohio school...it won't be pretty) I understand the issues involved, in fact they seem to be quite simple from my side of things, but I just can't seem to stop myself from going...and going...and going...and going...like the Engergizer bunny. with pants.

awww dammit!

2004-09-06T21:17:00.000-05:00

I had a nice, thoughtful entry all written about a work experience last week, and the damn computer ate it. So, somewhere out in the etherial netherworld of cyberspace, my description of the following situation floats: I experienced the contradictory feelings of excitement and accomplishment upon solving a vexing problem as compared with the sobering realization that this was a zero-sum game...if my side "won" then the other side lost. Big time. I know that I was just doing my job, and I admit I was pretty damn excited to solve the problem. (Although I could have solved the issue a lot sooner, if I had just gone straight to the statutory references included in the pile of documentary evidence, but hey, it was a learning experience.)

the entry was much more detailed than this, but alas, it was not to be.

HCBP

M...m...m...Mr. Vale?

2004-09-04T16:51:00.000-05:00

Like Aaron Stampler (or was it Roy?), it seems that Incurious George also was able to "lose time," except that this is reality, what that was just a damn good movie. Apparently, the ranting that I've done for three years now continues to prove to be based in fact, as Salon reports on the truth behind Dumya's "lost year" while defending the mean skies of Texas from the Viet Cong air forces.

A snippet:

In the spring of 1972, George H.W. Bush phoned his friend and asked a favor: Could [Jimmy] Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W. Bush?

"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Allison's widow, Linda, told me. "And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so loyal."

See the rest of the article here.

Now, about those cocaine use allegations, George...

HCBP

Can Blakely come out to play?

2004-09-03T21:22:00.000-05:00

Upon further review: if ¾ of criminal juries are ready to convict a crim defendant upon commencement of a crim trial, perhaps the notion that we should trust juries is somewhat stilted, and that makes the decision in Blakely even more important. Does this correspond to civil juries and civil trial verdicts, however? To go out on a stereotypical limb, let’s say that conservatives/Republicans don’t like the Blakely decision (they're "tough on crime" after all, right Kenny Boy?), and want uphold the Sentencing Guidelines, placing the sentencing fact finding out of the hands of the jury and in the hands of the judge. (of course, this disregards the fact that Nino Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and that Senator Kennedy, no neocon, he, and Senator Feinstein are signatories to the amicus brief just filed in the Booker and Fanfan appeal. But I digress…). And let’s further assume that liberals/Democrats are in favor of the Blakely sentencing repercussions e.g. the guidelines are unconstitutional because they don’t allow one to have a trial by jury (again, those Dems are a bunch o' wusses on crime, right Rush?). Such a notion, then, would be squarely in line with the current “tort reform” charade being pushed by the Republicans and George W. Bush. The underlying truth to “tort reform” is one of distrust of juries to be able to dispense fair decisions and corresponding awards. Removing the handy-dandy fact that an attack on “trial lawyers” (isn’t that simply anyone who handles cases in a courtroom and thus including lawyers on the defense side too, as well as prosecutors?) doubles as a not-so-subtle attack on Johns Kerry and Edwards, one is still left with the distinct and troubling notion that caps on jury awards effectively say “we don’t give a shit what the details of a case are…we don’t trust the jury to do the right thing, so we’ll remove the discretion from them preemptively.”

It makes me chuckle, then, to think of Shrub’s line from the 2000 debates: “My opponent trusts the government; I trust the people!” Right, George. And I trust you too, because you’ve been so forthcoming with the truth about everything from your TANG service to the reasons for your war hard-on to those lost years in the 1970’s when you were blowing coke up your nose.

The question that still remains, however, is the empirical one at the start of this entry: does the ¾ figure apply to civil juries as well as criminal juries; if juries are ¾ predisposed to find for the plaintiff, that might be somewhat persuasive evidence that tort caps may be needed, but for now, I’m not buyin’.

Four more years!

2004-09-02T14:20:00.000-05:00

Just a quick Bushian rant: I hear the common refrain chanted every election cycle with an incumbant: "Four more years! Four more years!" This time around, I have to question whether the people mindlessly chanting that purile statement give any thought whatsoever to what that acutally means.

Generally elections with an incumbant president are a referendum on the incumbant...either people want to give him another term, or they decide they didn't like the results of the first term, and therefore want to change by electing someone else. The incumbant, therefore, if he (or she, someday) is a strong candidate with a legitimate four year record to run on, generally runs on a "I was great already, vote for me again" campaign message, while the challenger has to run on the "the other guy is a _________" (insert quasi-slanderous, below-the-belt, personal attacks here) message. The challenger is the "unknown" entity, in theory at least. That's what makes this cycle so fascinating...Chimpy doesn't HAVE any positive record to run on. He's got about a 6 month window of "heroism" after 9-11 (I put "heroism" in quotes because I don't believe there's anything really heroic about simply doing your job...was I hero because I showed up to every single class for an entire week? methinks not), when his approval ratings shot up to 90% or higher. But other than that (misguided, in my opinion) small chunk of time where MIMS was seen as being our strong, awesome, stupendous, bitchin' leader, his admininstration has been utter dog crap for anyone not white, male, and rich. By every objective measurement (except one, which I'll refer to below), this admininstration has been a failure:
1. the level of people (and children...always for the children!) living in poverty has risen by over a million people just in the last year, and that doesn't include the large increase in such people EVERY YEAR of bush's admininstration.
2. our national "checkbook" has gone from having several trillion dollars of surplus to several more trillion dollars of debt...in three and a half years. you can only pay for government spending sprees in two ways...you can borrow against future generations' tax rates (and quality of life, i.e. the social support structures that are currently in place), or you can raise taxes now. bush chose to CUT taxes, and therefore you, and I, and my kids, and your kids, and my grandkids and your grandkids will be paying for this fiscal theivery.
3. the number of people employed in this country has fallen quite a bit since bush took over.
4. the number of bankruptcies is up, big-time, over the last three years.
5. the number of people who don't have insurance has skyrocketed over the last three years, again including large #'s of children, who are the ones who get the shaft on that kind of thing, and who in turn end up costing society more as a result...sick kids in school=less educated kids=less kids who are employable, etc.
6. on a global level, the admininstration has just, very quietly, come out and admitted that well, yes, perhaps global warming DOES exist, and perhaps we should think about doing something about that...while at the same time pushing forward changes that would gut our environmental (air, water, and soil) laws here to allow more pollution in the sake of "progress."
7. we're now engaged in two hot wars (that we know about), with a third one gathering on the horizon (SURELY bush wouldn't be dumb enough to invade Iran during a second term. Would he?...pay attention to the news...the admininstration is already laying the groundwork to build public support for "we HAVE to invade iran, RIGHT NOW!" based on concerns about nuclear weapons. either that, or isreal will strike iran, and iran will strike back, giving us an excuse to jump in as isreal's defender and ally...god, i hope i'm wrong).
8. those wars are wars without any kind of foreseeable end...and in a moment of surprising candor, bush admitted as such when he said "i don't think you CAN win the war on terror..." Ummmm...that's funny...a former history teacher in texas has been shouting that for four years now, but no one seems to want to listen! you can't win a war on ideology or a tactic, and terrorism is both, markedly different from fighting a war against another state.
9. bush has taken the immense good will that the rest of the world felt toward us on sept. 12, 2001 and taken a big huge dump on it, effectively telling the rest of the world to eff off. problem...in a world 200 years ago, we might have been able to do that; not today. we're too globally connected and interdependent to do that...did you ever notice that much of our manufacturing is now done somewhere other than the u.s.? if world war III went down (heck, if world war II went down today), we would be in a very serious way, very quickly, because we dont' produce such a vast amount of our own goods...we won world war II not because we had better equipment than the nazis and japanese (their technology was generally superior to our's) but because we could crank out many times the amount of stuff that they could, so when we lost 100 tanks it wasn't as big of a deal for us as it was for the germans. today, because he has "legitimized" the "strike first" mode of warfare, we have no moral ground to tell any other country that they can't strike first to defend themselves, even if the threat from which the country is defending itself is a phantom, manufactured threat.
10. the separation between the rich and the poor has accellerated at an alarming rate, spurred in large part by tax policies deliberately skewed to balance the lion's share of the tax burden not on those who can afford it most, but on those who can afford it least...the middle class (i.e. you and me.)
11. the level of hatred and animosity in this country is so great that i can bearly even stand it, and i blame bush for that as well.

These aren't mindless, made-up "librul, moran, conspir-uh-cees" (note: "moron" is intentionally misspelled, thanks to some Freeper's sign), these are simply objective statistical measurements of the country at this point, and where we were three and a half years ago. Well, at least most of the above is...I don't have any data to back up the fact that we can't ever win a war on terrorism, but the current war on drugs, and Johnson's war on poverty went so stunningly well that I think I can safely crawl out on that limb. I also have no empirical evidence to support the idea that the hatred and animosity in this country is "great" but anecdotal evidence will suffice there as well...see, e.g. NYC right now.

There is one statement that Bush can make and rightfully claim, and that is that there has not been another terror attack here in the U.S. since 9/11. However, that overlooks the fact that BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT ON 9/11, AND THE SECURITY FAILURES INHERANT TO THAT CATASTROPHE THEREFORE FALL ON HIS SHOULDERS. So, to claim that Happycrack has kept us safe from terror, is by definition, bullshit.

Hence, I have to ask myself, when hearing "Four more years" echoing from the walls of Madison Square Garden...Four more years of WHAT? Do you really WANT four more years of bodybags...errr...sorry, transfer tubes...coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you really WANT more...transfer tubes coming back to Dover AFB, stamped "Iran" or "Syria" or "China" or "Korea"? Can you honestly say to me that having a country on the express train to bankruptcy is a GOOD thing? Are you going to tell me that you want another four years of a man who believes that he can do no wrong because he's doing God's will with his hands on the tiller of the ship of state?

It makes me think of the immortal Top Gun line: "Son, your ego is writing checks that your body can't cash."

Time's up, Incurious George. Go cut some shrubs.

Aaa-nuld needs to get his facts straight...

2004-09-02T13:59:00.000-05:00

First of all, let me just say that I'm so effing sick and tired of hearing the Gropenator pepper his speeches with lines that either reference his films...well, they're not really films so much as movies...or the lines are lifted right from the dialogue of the movie. Coopting TV show writing from a parody of Arnold isn't much better, especially when it's used in a derogitory manner. However, all of that doesn't bother me as much as Arnold's claim of how he became a Republican. He claims that he was listening to the Richard Nixon-Hubert Humphrey Presidential debates as a newly arrived immigrant, and not knowing much English, Arnold had an German-speaking friend translate for him. Now, putting aside the somewhat dubious notion that a German-English-speaking bodybuilder with an interest and knowledge of politics sufficient to translate accurately even existed in the late 60s, there is a bigger problem with this story...there was no such debate in 1968.

Arnold has told this fib on quite a few occasions, apparantly, but unfortunately for him, there doesn't seem to be a hint of truth to it. Why, then, is that fact not being headlined in the newspapers from the Gropenator's speech coverage? If this were Al Gore saying "I kissed Tipper before I came on stage for this speech" the coverage would not be of the content of Gore's speech, it would about whether in fact there was a pre-speech buss, and how Gore was a serial lier for saying that he played tonsil-hockey with his wife. Hell, I found an LA Times article from a freakin year ago that debunks this "All-'Merkin" tale of Arnolds, why the hell don't people call him on it?

I'm gonna be sick. Below you can find the text of the article...

Fresh from Austria, a socialist country, Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to become a Republican after listening to "the debates of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon when they were debating for the presidential race," or so he told television talk show host Bill O'Reilly in May 2001.

" ... Hubert Humphrey spoke about things I heard in Austria under socialism."

But there was no presidential debate in 1968. Although Humphrey challenged Nixon to a debate, Nixon, who won the election, demurred.

Schwarzenegger previously recounted his version of history during an interview at the 2000 Republican National Convention. "When I came to this country, I was sitting in front of the television set, and I watched a debate between Humphrey and Nixon, and I didn't even understand half of it because my English wasn't good enough then. I had a friend of [mine] translating...."

Much the same account reappeared in a recent Newsweek magazine article about him. Schwarzenegger "was a Republican before he was a citizen," Newsweek wrote, "having watched a 1968 presidential debate for which a friend provided the translation. "[Hubert] Humphrey stood for the government [that] will solve all your problems," Schwarzenegger recalled. "[Richard] Nixon said no, free to choose, let the people decide. So I said to my friend, which party is Nixon? He said Republican. OK, I said, I'm a Republican."

In other accounts of his political conversion, including a TV interview with "Hardball's" Chris Matthews last year, Schwarzenegger made no reference to presidential debates, instead saying that he made up his mind to be a Republican after listening to news conferences and speeches by Humphrey and Nixon in 1968.

Sean Walsh, a spokesman for the Schwarzenegger campaign, said Tuesday that the candidate never saw any debate. He said Schwarzenegger recalls having heard Humphrey and Nixon talking on TV, and he asked a friend to translate what they were saying for him. "He heard the two of them talking and someone was translating for him what they were saying."

Los Angeles Times August 20, 2003 Wednesday.

Of course, SOO many people saw the article last year, because it was on PAGE 18!!!! Yet stories of Billy's cigar habit are front page news. Unreal. Biased liberal media my ass.

I'm kickin' my ass! Do ya mind?!

2004-09-02T13:58:00.000-05:00

Well, I must say that the old saw about law school has tended to be true thus far:
"The First Year they scare you to death. The Second Year they work you to death. The Third Year they bore you to death."

I won't know about the last part, and it's certainly not literal (aside: that's a pet peeve of mine: "I literally flew down High Street to get class in time!" No, no you didn't LITERALLY fly down High Street, unless you're of the type that has access to flight technology that the rest of us don't. But I digress...). However, it seems that the amount of "stuff" that has to be done this second year of law school is almost bordering on the overwhelming. Granted much of it is my own doing, in taking on responsibility for various and sundry things, but at the same time, while last year I felt I couldn't take an entire weekend off from doing "law school stuff" so that I was prepared for classes, this year it's hard to take a full day off so that I don't fall behind on any number of elements: work, classwork, journal, law-school-related extracurriculars, outside-of-lawschool extracurriculars, trying to send out an obscene and ungodly number of plaintive "please hire me, i'll do a nifty job, i swear" appeals to firms about which most of us know nothing except the name, making time for one's significant other, blogging...let's just say it's getting to be a bit much.

I feel like Jim Carrey's character in Liar Liar when he's in the bathroom while on a continuance for a "short bathroom break" and he resorts to self-flagellation in an attempt to get out of a court appearance for which he can't lie (aside: wouldn't it be interesting to have ALL lawyers, just for one day, unable to physically tell a lie? would make court hearings that day rather eventful and perhaps illuminating, I think). If I can just get myself to kick my own ass, then I can have an excuse to not do what I know needs to be done!

HCBP

And she'll have fun fun fun...

2004-08-29T21:00:00.000-05:00

Fun with the Commerce Clause!!! I deliciously love a paradox, namely a situation in which the Supreme Court will run head-on into its own dogmatic political ideology. Here's the situation: Slappy Thomas, Nino the Duckhunter, Bill "Look at my nifty gold stripes!" Rehnquist and Sandra "Dammit! I can't retire if Gore wins, Bush needs to win!" Day O'Conner have ushered in their Federalist Society wet-dream (can Sandy have a wet dream? just curious) of scaling back the reach of Congress by redefining the SCOTUS Commerce Clause jurisprudence in Lopez, and then in Morrison. Now, putting aside the issue of "activist judges" for a moment (itself a situation ripe with irony), let's confront the situation in which the Court will find themselves this coming term: How will they simultaneously narrow the scope of Congressional Commerce Clause power (the federalist argument) while still allowing the DEA's Congressionaly mandated (and mostly failed) federal "war on drugs." To be able to allow Congress the power to federally overrule California's (and a whole slew of other states) state law allowing medicinal ganja, Nino and the gang will have to put aside their federalism hard-ons; Conversely, to continue the Lopez line of cases and thereby advance the Federalist Society love of states rights (boy, don't you just LOVE a loaded term?), the SCOTUS will have to effectively hand a mighty big club to those working for saner drug laws and policy by allowing the voters of Cali-for-ni-yah the right to toke it up without fear of the Feds (provided they're under the supervision of a doctor, etc. etc. etc. But c'mon, let's be honest...is that an icy slope I see ahead?).

All in all, it appears that the Court will have to turn its back on one hallowed precept (state's raahts) or another (drugs are bad, m'kay?). Should be interesting, and probably will have Commerce Clause ramifications one way or the other; either we continue the Lopez/Morrison confining of federal power, or Morrison becomes the outer limits of federalism related to the Commerce Clause.

HCBP

it ain't over till...the judges decide

2004-08-27T15:34:00.000-05:00

The current furor over Paul Hamm's medal situation only goes to reinforce my belief that anything in which the outcome is determined solely by a judge or judges is not a sport. An exhibition, perhaps, but not really a sport. In a sport, you have competitors attempting to outdo each other in an objectively defined way of determining who was the best. You either achieve your goal (scoring a point, going faster or some other way of determing who's ahead) or you don't. Having the interference of a third party to decide the outcome make events like figure skating, gymnastics, synchronized swimming, diving, etc. in some ways no different than professional 'rasslin...and we all know that the results in THOSE contests are reached without any kind of questionable or debateable actions. Not to imply that the atheletes competing in "exhibition" sports are any less impressive for what they do in their given discipline, but I just can't get overly worked up over a contest that won't be decided, at the end of the day, by the participants themselves.

Just my own opinion, I suppose.

HCBP

Tricky Dick lives again...

2004-08-27T14:29:00.000-05:00

Can I just say that I love the Nixonian technique of throwing something into discourse by saying "I'm not saying that..." and then fininshing the sentence that you're supposedly not saying. "I'm not going to say that Bush is an illiterate ignoramous, but..."

DAB, that was absolutely classic. Now what would presentence report attorneys say 'bout that?

Topped only by the Michelle Malkin-esque "Some have said..." so as to raise a shady point, without really being the one to say it, hiding behind the skirts of the ubiquotous "Some."

HCBP

Some reflections on an analogy

2004-08-26T15:25:00.000-05:00

Here's an analysis of the current election situation, broken down to its very basics. Or as Al Clovis would say, after we've boiled the bullshit out of the details.

This election presents two very starkly contrasting visions of America's position in the world, and the characters are situated correspondingly.

On a micro level though, I think this election is much more simple than that, and to understand what I mean, take a look at high school or junior high student council elections. Who generally wins those elections? Generally it's the "cool kids" who are set on a pedastal of popularity for some reason. That doesn't mean, however, that the best choices are always made by the student body electorate. While Biff may well be a hoot to have around in the halls between classes, handing out nicknames or snapping the girls' bra straps, or a real cut-up on the field during a game or practice (or as a cheerleader, as the case may be), that doesn't really correspond to whether Biff is a good choice to be making real decisions with real repercussions; sometimes it IS better to let the geeks have the wheel.
Essentially, the characters are as follows:

Bush: he's the quintissential class clown but with a propensity for getting laughs through others' misfortunes. He's the guy who makes everyone laugh, although it's more of an uneasy "boy, I hope I'm not the next object of his scorn and derision, so I'll laugh along with him and try not to piss him off" kind of laugh. For some reason, people still find themselves drawn to people like this, even though an objective observer can't help but wonder, "What the fuck do people see in this guy that makes him popular?" He's great if you want to give someone a nuggy or a swirley (both "humerous" ways of inflicting abject humiliation at the giver's hand), but not really the one for substantive debates, much less mature decisions. This is guy for whom a "great weekend" consists of getting shit-faced, perhaps snorting some blow or dropping some Ex, trying to force the "hot chick" to "give him some," and after she threatens to scream, he tells her she's fat and ugly and he was just messing with her - he wouldn't even touch her. This guy continues the night by jumping into a car and playing mailbox baseball because it's cool to destroy stuff, and then finishes the evening with some Bushdiving (a sport, ironically named, devoted to destroying your neighbors' shrubbery by diving into the bushes spread eagle so as to crush as much of the bush as possible). Then he goes to school and spends his Monday morning with a smirk on his face regaling the obediently listening knuckledraggers with tales of how "totally awesome" the weekend was, and how he was "like, SO wasted" the entire weekend, and how the "ugly chick TOTALLY wanted it, but he told her to get lost." And some kids find this appealing and in fact worthy of emulation, so it becomes all the rage around town, causing countless dollars of damage to others' property and immeasurable damage to the unlucky ladies.

Cheney: He's the hired muscle, very similar to the class clown (who's really a bully, but most people don't realize it because they're kept busy laughing at other people), but different in that he's just an outright bully. You very seldom see this guy smile, yet you don't want to incurr his wrath by simply asking "hey, did someone shit in your Cheerios this morning?" You're either one of the "in" crowd or you're not, and if you're not, you'd better not fuck with this guy, because he'll make sure you pay if you do. And your siblings will pay too, as will your car, your house, and the family dog. You might even answer the door to find a flaming bag of poo on the porch (put there by goofy George), next to what used to be the family cat, now neatly dissected, thanks to the handiwork of the Frist boy down the street who's a good friend of Dick (or what used to be a frog before the bully stuffed firecrackers into its butt and lit them, just to see "what would happen".) This is a guy who's such a bully that he can be named "Dick" and not get laughed at in school (although the kids laugh behind his back.) The bully doesn't even try to hide behind the facade of a smile, he's just the guy who walks down the hall between classes pushing little freshmen into lockers (or invading tinpot dictatorships), just because he can.

However, both of these two characters share some common traits: If you stand up to them, they'll initially be startled, and perhaps taken aback, but eventually they either increase the level of animosity in their behavior, or they whine about how "nobody's being fare" to them, that they're being picked on. Somehow, kids like this end up getting voted onto student council from time to time.

On the other hand, you have...

Kerry: He's the dorky kid who sits in the front of the class, and asks question after question, sometimes correcting the teacher in front of everyone, and generally eliciting the reaction of "ohh, jesus, HE's talking again!" Many of the kids in the class resent the geeky kid, either because they're subconsciously aware that the kid is going places, or because he can be long-winded and the students have a short attention span (and thus miss out on the important points in the middle of the geeky kid's soliloquies). However, the mature kids in the class recognize that the nerdy kid actually makes some astute observations, and that he has a mature, dare I say, nuanced view of the world, which makes for wise leaders. For this guy, a good time on the weekend is spent perhaps playing an instrument in a band (either structured or informal), or maybe reading ahead in his textbooks for next week. He might even decide to keep working on that new computer program he's writing, and if he can work up the guts to do so, he might ask out the cute little red-headed girl who sits next to him in French class, the the foreign exchange student who not only speaks French but also speaks several other languages as well. On Monday morning, he's back in his seat 10 minutes before the bell rings, honestly curious about what the teacher will cover that day.

Edwards: Edwards is the kid who seems to have it all, but still seems to have a chip on his shoulder that makes him try harder than maybe he even needs to. People instinctively want to like him, because he just seems so gosh darn neat. He's the good-looking kid who had perfect hair...in kindergarten. And it's only gotten better from there, on the physical attributes side of things. If Rick Perry is Governor Goodhair (all credit to Molly Ivins here), then Edwards would be Senator Stupendoushair. He's the kid who can have his pick of the young ladies to ask for homecoming or prom, but he doesn't pick the vapid, Paris Hilton-lookalike because she's hot, but instead he picks the smart chick who just kicked his ass on the last Calculus and History tests (no small feat, because he's also at the very top of his class). Smart, athletic, good-looking yet kind-hearted and generous, this is the kind of guy that some resent because he's got it all, and they think he's had it handed to him (although those who know this guy know that he's got to bust his ass every day to do what he does...except for the hair...that's just naturally perfect). People who know him also know that his background is what relentless drives this guy to always overachieve, and he never fails to do so.

Now, I ask you: which of these two different "teams" would be elected in a junior high or high school election? There's a very real chance that the first pair, the bullies (subtle and not so much so) would win the election, even if they had to...cough, cough...help the process along a bit. They're the ones who win with the platform that says "everyone should get three day weekends every week, and we should, like, get to have partner tests, and, uh, everyone should be able to tape the darkies and Pakis (and Afghanis - yes, I KNOW they're called "Afghans," and that the Afghani is the currency unit, but Incurious George doesn't know that) to the field goal posts." And the crowd cheers, waiting for Georgie's patented "burt" at the conclusion of his speech. (for the culturally unaware, that's a combination of a simultaneous fart and burp - two bodily expulsions of gas from two different orifices, very difficult to accomplish.)

On the other hand, the second pair can win, provided they are able to keep their reputations intact, unfairly smeared as they will inevitibly be by the bullies, and provided that the votes are allowed to be counted fair and square, and provided the mature, intelligent students who see the big picture bother to take the time to vote. The second pair says "We should start a peer tutoring program, and try to discourage graphitti on the school by having a crew paint over it as soon as we find it, and we should have a teacher appreciation week to show them that we are greatful for what they do." And the crowd politely applauds, knowing that John is right, but not wanting to appear "uncool" by enthusiastically embracing the maturity and vision that John presents.

Two different approaches, two different world views, two vastly different end results.

Which one will our student body choose in November (if they're allowed to choose at all)?

HCBP

A perfect example of Drudge "manufacturing" a story...

2004-08-24T18:49:00.000-05:00

I confess...like a moth once zapped but still drawn inexorably to that blue light, I'm a repeat peruser of Senior Drudge's little on-line latrine. Usually it's just for poopies and giggles, to see what kind of derivitive slant he's attempting to put on any news that may be beneficial for anyone not of the BFEE (see www.bartcop.com for the definition). However, it's also an interesting phenomenon to observe when Drudge attempts to insert himself directly into the news process itself; he decides that something "is" and quicker than KennyBoy with the shredder, the other corporate lapdog media are reporting Drudge's little nugget (or turd, as it were) as actual news.

A link on his site currently is the perfect example: A picture appears, of that paragon of alpha-male/chickenhawk-dom Donny Rumsfeld. Something doesn't look quite right about the picture, but the eyes are drawn to Drudge's cute little headline, referencing that this Reuters photo is "Rumsfeld through the crosshairs" and the picture has "drawn concern." Remembering the brew-ha-ha a while back over a photo of Kerry that was somewhat similar (apparantly Matt does to, b/c now there's a link to that "flashback" as well), I clicked on the link...nothing but a file photo of Rumsfeld as seen through the lens of a television camera. No crosshairs, no context that would create cause for concern, nothing. The caption of the picture has nary a mention of any "concern" drawn from the picture.

So from whence is the concern drawn? Apparantly Matty is wringing his cute little fedora out of shape with concern about the plot against Rummy.

Out here in reality land, however, I see a creative, artistic picture, one open and prone to interpretation if you're of that particular bent, but hardly "cause for concern."

Just watch...someone will pick it up and run with it as real news, however. What're the odds that Fox will do so? Hmmmm......

Because I'd prefer not to drive traffic to Sludge's website, here's the link to the picture itself...I blog, you decide. Apologies to Fox. (unlike Al Franken, I don't have a book to popularize via frivilous lawsuit.)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040824/ids_photos_india_wl/ra1916556102.jpg

HCBP

Should I be concerned...?

2004-08-24T07:23:00.000-05:00

After going to work at my clerkship on the first day, the supervisor gave me the "grand tour" and upon introduction to other attorneys, and those attorneys hearing who I will be working for, the general reaction was somewhere along the lines of "ohhh...I guess you're going to be VERY busy this semester!"

I must confess, hearing that (repeated) response was a little disconcerting.

On a different note, I had to chuckle upon hearing Smirkey McChimpster call for an end to 527 advertisements. No, Georgie, the problem isn't with 527's and their ads...the problem is when the 527's are illegally coordinated with your campaign, and they make no pretense of trying to make substantive arguements, instead directly and intentionally attacking the character and veracity of Senator Kerry. I've yet to see a MoveOn Ad that attacked Incurious George just being a complete waste of oxygen and skin; all of their ads attack King George's RECORD, a gargantuan difference. To paraphrase Harry Truman: We just tell people the truth, and BushCo thinks it's hell.

HCBP

oh, and one other things about the Swiftie's...

2004-08-22T21:14:00.000-05:00

Saying "I served with John Kerry" as the individuals do in that ad is like saying that just because I've been in a movie, "I worked with Tom Hanks." Perhaps the men did serve in Vietnam, but just because they happened to have been in Southeast Asia at the same time as John Kerry does not mean they "served with him." And the guy who claims to have treated Kerry's wound and now slanders Kerry by claiming it was "superficial"...? His name appears nowhere on any documentation of the treatment for that wound. In other words, all these guys are effing lyers who need to be sued in civil court (by President Kerry, in his second term, dependinging on the statute of limitations) for libel and slander.

Report on THAT, Mattie my boy. Well, not MY boy, but you're SOMEONE's boy, aren't you, Drudge? Do you find it hard to schill for a party that hates who you are, Matt? Just curious.

On a larger note, I have to hand it to BushCo...with the constant, breathless debate over "did Kerry have a major wound, or just a minor wound?," the terms of the debate are not so much A) the absolute travesty that goes with "judging" wounds and their relative merits vis a vis Purple Hearts (and a development that all vets should find unconscionable), nor B) the absolute, unmitigated f#$k-up that has been the last three years of BushCo behind the wheel of State. The focus of attention is on something so completely irrelevent that it makes the Millard Fillmore presidency look absolutely vital.

Unfortunately, Kerry has to spend his time defending himself from these scum, and not focused on the failures of the current misadmininistration, and the 'Merkin sheeple don't get it.

HCBP

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do....

2004-08-22T20:44:00.000-05:00

Hmmmm...despite their persistent denials, I can't help but look at the screen capture (link below) from the Collier County (FL) GOP's website and wonder to my self..."self, do you think B/C 04 would lie? It DOES appear that there is coordination between the 527 known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Bullshit...er...for Bush...er...for "Truth" and the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign. Now, self, YOU know that such coordination is illegal, but surely SOMEONE at the FEC knows that too, right? Surely SOMEONE will suffer some sort of repercussion from this??? What's that? It's FLORIDA, after all? oh..."

It seems that the Collier County GOP was soliciting funds for the Swifties, but since they were "outed," the soliciation (and a link to the libelous TV ad) has been removed from the website.

One more crack in the dyke, if I may. And no, you may not make purile jokes about the previous sentence.

click on the link, then scroll down a ways...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x649116#649120

HCBP

A hint for the culturally refined...

2004-08-22T19:40:00.002-05:00

As the title says, apparantly the hint in the first post was not enough to reference the title of said post (although I find the plaintive plea for more help for the culturally refined somewhat amusing, as the film from which the title is lifted is quite the "intellectually funny" movie, i.e. it's safe to say that Jim Carey is not the featured monkey on a string). Here's another hint: this windy movie was not rated "best in show" although it did garner at least one Academy Award nomination, for best original song.

Wow, I'm outdoing myself with the hints.

HCPB

I may not be a smart ma'an, Jinny....

2004-08-22T19:25:00.000-05:00

Ok, so now that I've spent some time doodling around with this blog thingy, I'm still at a loss for how to create a nifty list of links. As I have much work to do in preparation for tomorrow, I'll consider this a metaphorical message in a bottle, cast out to the open seas from a desert island, a plaintive plea of "Help me! please!" If any stumbles across this blog and has any clue how to do this, assistance would be most appreciated.

HCBP